Living on the edge, which often means engaging in activities that may injure or kill you, is increasingly popular in our society. Currently two climbers are still missing on Mount Hood in Oregon after the body of the third member of their climbing party has been found. Every year hundreds of volunteers risk their own lives to rescue persons who have voluntarily placed themselves in dangerous circumstances to achieve a personal goal.
I believe that a person has a right to engage in activities that they find personally challenging and fulfilling, but they do not have a right to expect others to place their own lives in danger to save theirs when something goes wrong. I watched the volunteers climbing Mount Hood in hurricane force winds, freezing temperatures and blowing snow to try to locate the missing climbers. While I admire their efforts, I can only wonder how the lost climbers, and their families, would feel if they were rescued while one or more of the rescuers lost their lives in the search and rescue mission.
Last year I saw a CNN interview with the wife of a missing solo long distance sailor. Her husband had made a number of long distance single handed voyages on his sail boat without incident. Several months before the interview he left Los Angeles on a sailing trip to Europe and was never heard from again. He specifically never took any communication devices with him on his solo voyages because he refused to allow anyone to place their lives in jeopardy to save his. This is a perfect example of ethical behavior in taking personal responsibility for the consequences of your personal decisions.
My wife and I are campers and hikers, but we would never knowingly engage in any activity that may place ourselves in obvious danger and require others to risk their lives to save ours. We all admire those who respond to disasters, natural and manmade, to rescue others in danger, but I believe that it is unethical to expect others to save us from our own bad decisions.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
The term 'rescue' is devoid of any discretion and is to provide service to anyone and everyone needy. The art of rendering looks just forward and forward and forward...Looking backwards is doom to human kind.
Men can be lost but not mankind.
I partially agree with your prescription of ethics for 'Living on the edge'.
'Living on the edge' is universal spirit of all life, alike.
The one difference is just that, when most people consider it an inevitable order or a routine, the rest of them consider it as a sport!
The rescuers are the ones who have the zing way to cope with 'Living on the edge'. For them, it is a routine sport.
They have pledged to save humanity and not human beings. So we just don't need any ethics to guide the people who sport and risk their lives.
I would agree with what you said in that the one's who consider it a sport, must do it with reason and analyze the consequences of their endeavor themselves and I f the endeavor is quixotic, then choose not to do it at all.
I think if such previously undertaken quixotic adventures are put to strict criticism and defame so much so that the new risk takers will think twice before they might choose to be another stock in that list; they will surely know their limits.
However, I don't think personal ethics for 'Living on the edge' would make a good appeal to such sport lovers. But that is not a bad idea!
Why it is not an appealing idea is because I f we start thinking on individualistic perspective, the reach is scarce and diversified.
So we need to mark it with a collective perspective and limit the individuals who are in the wrong.
If something is not inculcated by reason and forethought, it is to be taught. Just preaching ethics will not do. Do you agree with me on this?
In this country, money talks. People who undergo such journeys should be required to repay whatever costs are involved in their rescue, including financial compensation to the family members of any rescuer who is hurt or injured in the rescue attempt. that would slow a LOT of them down, I expect.
That is a fantastic idea! One must pay for his unreasonable endeavours in the name of 'living on the edge'.
Very Well said by you_
"In this country, money talks. People who undergo such journeys should be required to repay whatever costs are involved in their rescue, including financial compensation to the family members of any rescuer who is hurt or injured in the rescue attempt. that would slow a LOT of them down, I expect. "
That surely would!
I feel sorry for the climbers and their families, but they where/are experienced adults who sought out danger and excitement and got more than they expected. There are 200 dead bodies near the summit of Mt. Everest, but at least no one has died trying to retrieve them. Everest is one place risk takers can only expect a minimum effort to save them when things go wrong. The body count near the summit is a clear warning about the risks of trying to climb the world's highest mountain.
'Discretion' comes with being judgemental of the past experiences....
I must appreciate you on that for you have brought to the forum, a topic o f discussion as this, from the forgotten corners of false heroism which media has conferred upon the risk takers. The media has to get over this amnesia.